Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846 (10th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the fact that were not considered in the order or judgment does 658 not prevent the decision of the district court from being final. these unserved defendants were never made parties to this lawsuit.”
63 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Felders v. Bairett (ca10, 2018-03-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Felders v. Bairett (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
10th Cir. · 2018 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the fact that were not considered in the order or judgment does 658 not prevent the decision of the district court from being final. these unserved defendants were never made parties to this lawsuit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Sheriff's Office
10th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
Br., Doc. 13-2 at 11; see also id. at 12 (“Bottom line is that the federal defendants . . . failed to respond to a summons.”). 5 Appellate Case: 25-1076 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2025 Page: 6 unserved defendant to be a party, see Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Estate of Angelo Wright v. Burnham
10th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
See Raiser v. Utah Cnty., 409 F.3d 1243 , 1245 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir. 1986). 2 Appellate Case: 22-4033 Document: 010110803149 Date Filed: 01/25/2023 Page: 3 demonstrate deliberate indifference to Mr. Wright’s medical needs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parks v. Taylor
10th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Also, while the failure to enter judgment against served defendants prevents a prior decision from being final, unresolved claims against unserved defendants do not “prevent” a prior decision from being final, see Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), unless “the district court’s expectation of further proceedings against unserved defendants means its dismissal of served defendants is not final,” Adams v. C3 Pipeline Constr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) London v. Beaty (2×)
10th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) York v. Performance Auto, Inc.
Utah Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Failure to dismiss additional named but un-served defendants "did not leave claims pending in the district court or prevent the entry of final judgment since the unserved defendants were not made parties to the action prior to dismissal." Id. (citing Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Booher v. Trexler
10th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986). 2 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. Albert
10th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
It was not necessary for the district court to enter an order dismissing them prior to its entry of the order and judgment [from which appeal was taken].” Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Raiser v. Utah County
10th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management
10th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Harolds Stores, Inc. v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1541 (10th Cir.1996); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Otteson v. State, Department of Human Services, Office of Social Services (2×) also: Cited "see"
Utah Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
However, the failure to dismiss or enter judgment against the sole remaining served defendant did not adjudicate claims against "all of the defendants who are parties to [the] suit.” Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Otteson v. STATE, DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES (2×) also: Cited "see"
Utah Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] However, the failure to dismiss or enter judgment against the sole remaining served defendant did not adjudicate claims against "all of the defendants who are parties to [the] suit." Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir. 1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hutchinson v. Pfeil
10th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jan E. Jurasek v. Utah State Hospital Adam Ozuna, Psych. Tech. Joe Couey, Recreational Therapist
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Furthermore, "a judgment which 'adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties' is subject to revision and, therefore, is not final in the absence of a determination that 'there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for entry of judgment.' " Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir.1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). 6 Subject to exceptions not applicable here, 1 we have jurisdiction to review only "final decisions." 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ; see Cook, 974 F.2d at 148 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Savings & Loan Insurance v. Tullos-Pierremont
5th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir.1987); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.s. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975 , 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); DeTore v. Jersey City Police Employees Union, 615 F.2d 980 , 982 n. 2 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Studivant, 529 F.2d 673 , 674 n. 2 (3d Cir.1976); cf. Patchik v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984) (Recognizing that judgment of dismissal is final under section 1291 where "only unserved defendants remain," but ho…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation v. Tullos-Pierremont
5th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1470 (11th Cir.1987); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 1975 , 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); DeTore v. Jersey City Police Employees Union, 615 F.2d 980 , 982 n. 2 (3d Cir.1980); United States v. Studivant, 529 F.2d 673 , 674 n. 2 (3d Cir.1976); cf. Patchik v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984) (Recognizing that judgment of dismissal is final under section 1291 where "only unserved defendants remain," but h…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott Fugate v. Borg Textile Corporation, and Crompton Company, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Sider v. Valley Line, 857 F.2d 1043, 1045-46 (5th Cir.1988); Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469 -70 (11th Cir.1987); Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1987); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir.1986); Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 (1981); De Tore v. Local No. 245 of the Jersey City Pub.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allie Lockridge v. Dr. Dickson, Henry Ford Hospital Dr. A. Kamboris, Henry Ford Hospital
6th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Co. v. Daytona Hotel & Motel Suppliers, Inc., 817 F.2d 1533 , 1536 (11th Cir.1987); Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1987); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam); Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam) The notice of appeal filed on September 5, 1988 was 28 days late.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Sider v. Valley Line
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469 (11th Cir.1987), the Eleventh Circuit joined with other circuits who have addressed this issue and held “that where an action is dismissed as to all defendants who have been served and only unserved defendants remain, the district court’s judgment may be considered a final appealable order.” Id. at 1470 , citing Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986); Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 1975 …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Swanson v. Whitmare
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
See Insinga v. LaBella, 817 F.2d 1469, 1469-70 (11th Cir.1987); Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1987); Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir.1986); Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 (1981); De Tore v. Local No. 245 of the Jersey City Public Employees Union, 615 F.2d 980 , 982 n. 2 (3d Cir.1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Loman Development Company, Inc. v. Daytona Hotel And Motel Suppliers, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
However, the non-defaulting defendants had not yet been served with process. 4 Accordingly, for the purposes of Rule 54, the unserved defendants were not yet "parties" and no certification was necessary for the judgment to become final. 5 See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir.1986); Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 1975 , 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); United States v. Studivant, 529 F.2d 673 , 674 n. 2 (3d Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Loman Development Co. v. Daytona Hotel & Motel Suppliers, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
However, the non-defaulting defendants had not yet been served with process. 4 Accordingly, for the purposes of Rule 54, the unserved defendants were not yet “parties” and no certification was necessary for the judgment to become final. 5 See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir.1986); Patchick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 451 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 1975 , 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); United States v. Studivant, 529 F.2d 673 , 674 n. 2 (3d Cir.1976).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Nagle v. Harry Lee, Sheriff of Jefferson Parish State of Louisiana, Lt. Clifford Montecino, Detective Patricia Laura, Deputy John Doe
5th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Bristol v. Fibreboard Corporation, 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 1975 , 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); De Tore v. Jersey City Police Employees Union, 615 F.2d 980, 982 (3d Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Camarena v. Superior Contracting Corp.
N.M. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“These unserved defendants were never made parties to this lawsuit.
cited Cited "see" Kristina Consulting Group v. Decision One Debt Relief
10th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol, 789 F.2d at 847-48 ; Adams, 17 F.4th at 55 & n.4.
discussed Cited "see" Woods v. Ross Dress For Less (2×)
10th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol, 789 F.2d at 847 .
cited Cited "see" Brown v. Fisher
10th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir. 1986).
cited Cited "see" Brown v. Fisher
10th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986).
cited Cited "see" McBride v. American Express
10th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1986). 5 .
cited Cited "see" Dwire v. Toth
10th Cir. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir. 1986).
cited Cited "see" Parkins v. Patterson
10th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847-48 (10th Cir. 1986).
discussed Cited "see" Jerome A. Crowder V.
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986) (per curiam); see also Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Dealy, 911 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir.1990) ("[U]nserved defendants are not parties for purposes of Rule 54(b) and a judgment does not lack the finality necessary for appeal merely because claims against unserved defendants are unresolved.").
discussed Cited "see" Kevin Paul Ferree v. Teresa W. Marianos, and Shapiro & Marianos, a Partnership
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986) 2 Section 1692e(2)(A) prohibits the "false representation" of the "character, amount, or legal status of any debt." 3 Section 1692e(5) prohibits a "threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken." 4 Section 1692g requires that when an independent debt collector solicits payment it must provide the consumer with a detailed validation notice.
cited Cited "see" Ferree v. Marianos
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir. 1986). -2- (bankruptcy discharge extinguishes only in personam claim while leaving in rem claim intact).
discussed Cited "see" Armstrong v. Armstrong (2×)
D. Colo. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 848 (10th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited "see" John Insinga, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Mildred Insinga, Deceased v. Michelle Labella, Humana, Inc., D/B/A Biscayne Medical Center
11th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986); Patckick v. Kensington Publishing Corp., 743 F.2d 675, 677 (9th Cir.1984); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908 , 101 S.Ct. 1975 , 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981); United States v. Studivant, 529 F.2d 673 , 674 n. 2 (3d Cir.1976).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trevor Charles v. Thomas Atkinson
5th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence medium
We thus conclude that the September 19 orders were final for purposes of appeal.” (emphasis added)); see also Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir. 1986); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599, 608-09 (2d Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eaton v. Oklahoma
10th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Kane Enters. v. MacGregor (USA) Inc., 322 F.3d 371 , 374 n. 1 (5th Cir.2003) (noting that for appellate jurisdictional purposes, an improperly served defendant is treated as not being before the district court); see also Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F.2d 846, 847 (10th Cir.1986) (observing that unserved defendants never become parties to a lawsuit).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gene Kendel Bristol and Fern Bristol
v.
Fibreboard Corporation Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation Celotex Corporation Gaf Corporation Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulation Company Nicolet Industries, Inc. Keene Corporation Combustion Engineering, Inc. Forty-Eight Insulation, Inc. Owens-Illinois, Inc. Raymark Industries, Inc. Flintkote Company Rock Wool Manufacturing Company H.B. Fuller Company H.K. Porter Company National Gypsum Co., Johns-Manville Sales Corporation Ryder Industries Unarco Industries, Inc.
85-1974.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
May 2, 1986.
789 F.2d 846
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: Tenth Circuit (1)

789 F.2d 846

Gene Kendel BRISTOL; and Fern Bristol, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FIBREBOARD CORPORATION; Owens-Corning Fiberglass
Corporation; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.;
Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation; Celotex Corporation; GAF
Corporation; Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulation
Company; Nicolet Industries, Inc.; Keene Corporation;
Combustion Engineering, Inc.; Forty-Eight Insulation, Inc.;
Owens-Illinois, Inc.; Raymark Industries, Inc.; Flintkote
Company; Rock Wool Manufacturing Company; H.B. Fuller
Company; H.K. Porter Company; National Gypsum Co.,
Defendants-Appellees,
Johns-Manville Sales Corporation; Ryder Industries; Unarco
Industries, Inc., Defendants.

No. 85-1974.

United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.

May 2, 1986.

Mark H. Iola of Ungerman, Conner & Little, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Murray E. Abowitz and Mort G. Welch of Abowitz & Welch, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants-appellees Fibreboard Corp., Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp., Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., Celotex Corp., Keene Corp., Owens-Illinois, Inc., Flintkote Co., Rock Wool Mfg. Co., H.K. Porter Co., and Nat. Gypsum Co.

R. Casey Cooper and Linda Chindberg Hubble of Boesche, McDermott & Eskridge, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant-appellee GAF Corp.

Georgiana T. Hammett, Tom L. King and Jeff R. Beeler of King, Roberts & Beeler, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant-appellee Standard Asbestos Mfg. and Insulation Co.

Mike Barkley and Michele Ticknor Gehres of Barkley, Ernst, White, Hartman & Rodolf, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant-appellee H.B. Fuller Co.

Before SEYMOUR and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and KANE, District Judge.[*]

PER CURIAM.

1

In accordance with 10th Cir.R. 9(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), this appeal came on for consideration on the briefs and record on appeal.

2

This is an appeal from an order and judgment, both entered on June 19, 1985. The order sustained a motion for summary judgment joined in by eighteen of the twenty-one defendants who were named in the complaint. Judgment was entered in favor of the same eighteen defendants. Of the remaining three defendants named in the complaint who were not dealt with in the judgment, two of them, Johns-Manville Sales Corporation (Johns-Manville) and Unarco Industries, Inc. (Unarco), were never served with the complaint. The docket sheet of the district court reflects that the third remaining defendant Ryder Industries, Inc. (Ryder), was served with process on August 22, 1984. Subsequent to this, Ryder did not answer the complaint or join in the motion for summary judgment.

3

The issue presented is whether the order and judgment entered on June 19, 1985, are final in light of the fact that three of the defendants listed in the complaint are not considered in either of these documents.

4

The fact that Johns-Manville and Unarco were not considered in the order or judgment does not prevent the decision of the district court from being final. These unserved defendants were never made parties to this lawsuit. It was not necessary for the district court to enter an order dismissing them prior to its entry of the order and judgment. See DeTore v. Jersey City Public Employees Union, 615 F.2d 980 (3d Cir.1980); Leonhard v. United States, 633 F.2d 599 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 908, 101 S.Ct. 1975, 68 L.Ed.2d 295 (1981).

5

The failure of the district court to dismiss Ryder prior to the entry of the order and judgment does prevent the decision from being final and appealable. The order and judgment specifically rule in favor of every served defendant with the exception of Ryder. As such, the order and judgment do not adjudicate the plaintiffs' claims against all of the defendants who are parties to this suit.

6

Finality in this case is controlled by Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), which provides that a judgment which "adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties" is subject to revision and, therefore, is not final in the absence of a determination that "there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." The court's order and judgment of June 19, 1985, both lacked this Rule 54(b) certification and therefore do not constitute a final and appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. See Lamp v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 1167 (10th Cir.1981).

7

The plaintiffs, in their memorandum brief addressing the present jurisdictional issue, claim that the service of process on Ryder was improper and of no legal effect. They claim that the Secretary of the State of Oklahoma was served as Ryder's agent for service and that, at that time, the plaintiffs were informed that Ryder had previously filed for bankruptcy. The plaintiffs contend that the bankruptcy laws, specifically the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a), prevents the service on Ryder from being effective. However, there is nothing contained in the record on appeal which substantiates this contention now raised by the plaintiffs. Therefore, this court must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because there is no evidence to indicate that the order or judgment of the district court were final as to all parties below.

8

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

*

The Honorable John L. Kane, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation